Wednesday, September 29, 2004

The terrorists are not winning

In this book, Gilles Kepel argues that, contrary to much of the MSM reporting, the terrorists are not winning, and in fact, are losing support among their poplace. Go here for the Washington Post article on it.

Kerry interview on Iraq

So, watch and learn as Kerry squirms as he gets asked real questions about whether the Iraq war was worth it. At this rate, hes got time to change his mind three or four more times come election day... (transcript from PoliPundit)

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not — it depends on the outcome ultimately — and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people — plain and simple. Bottom line.

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

DS: But right now it wasn’t [ … ? … ]–

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we’ve done what he’s — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That’s the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

DS: So you’re saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing — you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane — don’t twist here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Diane Sawyer doesn't seem like an interview to strike fear into the heart of presidential candidates...

Kerry Campaign talking out both sides of its mouth

While Kerry attempts to convince us that he can build a bigger coalition for the war in iraq (even after the Germans say no definitively), his sister, as a Kerry campaign official, is trying to undermine the current one. According to her, "Australia has kept faith with the U.S., and we are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels."

So, just to clarify things:

1) Iraq war is illegal and unilateral.


2) Kerry can convince other countries to send troops...

to the illegal unilateral war waged by the US and the "coerced and the bribed." Got it. Makes so much sense, why didn't I see it before? Possibly because I care that my positions be logically consistent?

Kerry unveils another of Bush's "secret plans"

I'm getting really tired of the "Bush has a secret plan to hurt you, so you should vote for me" line from the Kerry campaign. This time, it's Kerry telling Wisconsin dairy farmers that Bush will oppose an effort to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract that helps dairy farmers when milk prices drop and is set to expire in October 2005. He said the Bush administration would wait until after the election to act so voters in swing dairy states wouldn't turn against him. If he knows so much about Bush's plans for the country, why can't he come up with his own?

Flip-flop... Flip-flop...

An editorial on how Kerry has indeed flip flopped on Iraq; from a 1997 Senate speech by Kerry (all emphasis mine):

We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent — and that the United States should support and participate in those steps...

While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. It is a time for resolve. Tomorrow we must make that clear to the Security Council and to the world.

Mr. Kerry, I wholeheartedly agree with you. At least the you that encouraged going in to take out the weapons of mass destruction that even you believed were there somewhere.

The punch line (by the author, not Kerry):

So is it plausible for John Kerry to have believed in 1997 that Saddam was a grave threat requiring the use of significant, preemptive, and unilateral military force but to now - more than five years later and in a post-9/11 world - stand before us and argue the opposite? It is not.

Jimmy Carter pushes for election monitoring

Here's a laughable one by Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter is calling for election monitoring for Florida after the situation that resulted in 2000. Only one problem with this (okay... several...).

1) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.

So... Jimmy is lumping the United States in with dictatorships that hold sham elections, such as the amazing Iraq, where Saddam garnered a whopping 99.96% of the vote last time. Great to be respected by our own "leaders."

2) The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore.

Indeed. How dare this official so shamefully allow people to vote for someone besides Al Gore? Many options couldn't possibly be good for democracy, could they? Sheesh...

3) It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy.

I'm just amused that ex-president Carter doesn't know the difference between a government where everyone votes on everything (pure democracy) and the type government he ran for four years (representative democracy).

But of course these are small issues. The really big one is that Carter has absolutely no credibility when it comes to identifying voter fraud. He recently oversaw the Venezuelan recall elections. The polls the day before the election had the Anti-Chavez side with an 18% lead. The exit polls on election day confirmed this. Yet when the votes were tabulated, Chavez "won" by 18%. THERE WAS A 36% DISCREPANCY BETWEEN EXIT POLLS AND ELECTION RESULTS, AND THIS IS SOMEHOW A "FAIR" ELECTION?!?! There is no way this man should be in charge of any election oversight after that. Carter, you blew it, now shut up.

There will be no draft

For goodness sake, would people please stop repeating the endless rumors that there's going to be a draft for the Iraq war. That's retarded for several reasons. I personally know that we are no closer to activating the draft now than we were two years ago. My father is on the local draft board, and he has heard NOTHING. For a thurough debunking of the draft myth, has one here. And for all the people thinking that the two bills in Congress about reinstating the draft are some "secret" agenda of the Bush administration: both HR 163 and S 89 are sponsored only by Democrats.

Saturday, September 25, 2004

How will comments like this make us "respected in the world?"

William Kristol weighs in on the Kerry Campaign and the candidate's supposed ability to get more countries to help in Iraq while making America more "respected in the world" :

Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi spoke to a joint meeting of Congress. Sen. Kerry could not be troubled to attend, as a gesture of solidarity and respect. Instead, Kerry said in Ohio that Allawi was here simply to put the "best face on the policy." So much for an impressive speech by perhaps America's single most important ally in the war on terror, the courageous and internationally recognized leader of a nation struggling to achieve democracy against terrorist opposition.
But Kerry's rudeness paled beside the comment of his senior adviser, Joe Lockhart, to the Los Angeles Times: "The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips."

There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours--and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?

For all the talk of President Bush shredding alliances, Senator Kerry does not appear to be reluctant to get out the shredder when it may help him get elected.

Iraq is not Vietnam

I'm getting a little tired of seeing the Iraq=Vietnam equation bandied about, so here is a different perspective on which war in our nation's past it most resembles.

The trade defecit isn't really that scary

Here is a great article describing how the world and the US economy are changing, and why this means that the trade defecit (difference between imports and exports) is quickly being rendered meaningless. The point:

Look at a laptop. It sells for $1000. $200 of that is for an Intel chip (Intel's gross profit is $180) and $100 for Windows XP (Microsoft's gross profit is $99.99!) The margin of those two products is more than the gross margins of all the companies that make the other components combined and of the laptop itself. What drives the ability of companies to create such margins? Intellectual property.

Friday, September 24, 2004

Reason # 4785 that Michael Moore is a bastard

There is no word in the English language to describe the disgust and contempt I feel for that waste of space at this moment. I was looking around on the internet, and I stumbled across this quote from his blog in April:

Those are not "contractors" in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES and SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE.

Yes that's right. Mr. Scumbag himself is providing the Iraqi resistance with its propaganda, free of charge. He has told the people if Iraq that the people simply trying to rebuilt power plants, sewage, and other infrastructure are there as soldiers. DO YOU THINK THIS IS GOING TO DISCOURAGE THEM FROM TAKING CONTRACTORS AS HOSTAGES?!?!?! WHERE IS YOUR FUCKING SENSE OF DECENCY?!?!?! By that quote ands by calling the Iraqi insurgency "the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen" he exceeds the bounds of human decency, and comes perilously close to treason, giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, especially during a war. Don't believe that the resistance is using this verbatim? Right here:

Heads up... From Michael Moore Those are not “contractors” in Iraq. They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway. They are MERCENARIES

They even link to Moore's full site, so apparently the people we're at war against have nothing to fear from people reading everything he has to say. And how exactly does this make him a "patriot," as the liberals like to call him? It doesn't. It makes him a traitor.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

AP campaigning against Bush... again...

Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi gave a speech to Congress , saying that "The insurgency in Iraq is destructive but small, and it has not and will never resonate with the Iraqi people," and that "Elections will occur in Iraq on time in January because Iraqis want elections on time." The AP has a story out on the wire now to cover this speech (I can't find the text online, but Powerline has a more detailed story on it). In it they do three things:

1) Tell you what Allawi said (fair enough).
2) Do their best to undercut the substance of the speech
3) Finish with Kerry bashing Bush Iraq policy and a Washington analyst blasting it by saying "As Prime Minister Allawi comes here, we need real accomplishments and real progress and honest measures of capability, not sound bites of rhetoric which are not substantiated by the figures being issued in detail by the United States government."

In all honesty, shouldn't we give this guy at least a fair hearing before laying into him like this?


"The United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq," Kerry told reporters outside a Columbus firehouse. "There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone."

In the words of John Hinderaker:

So the Democratic Party's candidate for President is on record as saying that January elections are impossible; or, if held, they will be illegitimate. The primary purpose of the terrorists' current terror campaign is to force the postponement or cancellation of the Iraqi elections. A secondary objective has been to secure the election of John Kerry. Through Kerry's own actions, those objectives have now become one. Kerry's message to the terrorists is: What you're doing is working. Keep it up. If I'm elected, you'll get your wish and there will be no elections in Iraq.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Now THAT column was retarded.

Wow. Some people are just willfully blind. Mr. Danny Schechter of the liberal published a column today accusing the blogosphere of trying to shift the MSM's focus from Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record to Dan Rather's forgery scandal.

Among the highlights:

A news outlet once headed by "the most trusted man in America" is accused of being the least trustworthy. With Rather apologizing for airing a story based in part on memos that CBS cannot verify, it looks bad for network news in general and critics of President George W. Bush in particular. And that fits the M.O. of the people behind the hit.

Proving the truth beyond reasonable dispute is a decent blogger's "M.O." Judging by the whining, it certainly isn't yours, pal. I may not be successful every time, but at least I try.

Fox News branded this dust-up a scandal, a "Rathergate," using a familiar "change-the-subject" tactic to deflect attention away from persuasive charges that President Bush has not told the truth about his military "service." Allegations about a media misdemeanor were quickly blown up into a felony demanding Rather's career termination with prejudice.

Hmmm... Fox calls it a scandal. What, if not a scandal, do you call it when CBS airs a report based on blatant forgeries, takes days to admit that the documents are "questionable" (but not forgeries), and has not even suspended those responsible? By the way, speeding is a misdemeanor. I'd certainly like to think that the MSM doesn't use blatantly false information to confirm stories quite as often as my buddies exceed the speed limit.

[The Rathergate scandal is] a textbook example of how attacks against journalists are used to denigrate news not to the right wing's liking by planting items in the media food chain and cranking up an echo chamber of feigned indignation.

Allow me to get this straight. We have Burkett (document source), Mapes (CBS producer), and Lockhart (Kerry aide) in contact with each other, but that's not enough to link the Democratic Party to the forgeries. In the meantime, he's speculating that this is due to some right-wing "planting," with zero evidence to back him up? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. Oh, and "feigned indignation?" There is definitely nothing feigned about us being indignant. Allow me to repeat myself: we were misled by a major news network, then lied to that the documents were from an "unimpeachable source," and there has not even been a retraction. Of course people are indignant!

It's possible that CBS was flim-flammed...

Yeah. Just maybe. Understatement of the century, right there folks. The biggest problem with his whole column is that he forgets that when you get to the bottom of it, this whole scandal is about the American public being deceived by poorly forged memos. Even if the substance of the "fake but accurate" CBS story is correct, that in no way relieves CBS of its duty to thoroughly research and authenticate its evidence before airing it. In a best case scenario, the whole thing was due simply to inexcusably shoddy research. In a worst case scenario, due to the liberal media trying to damage the opposing candidate's reputation. Either way, CBS loses. Sorry Danny, but there's no way around that one.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

How Israel is Destroying the Intifada - And What We Can Learn From it

This post explains what Israel is doing to win its own war on terror, and what we can learn from it. Some highlights: (all emphasis mine)

For those who claim that fighting terrorism creates more terrorists:

At every phase of Israel's counteroffensive, skeptics have worried that attempts to suppress terrorism would only encourage more of it. They warned that Israel couldn't close Orient House, the Palestinian Liberation Organization's de facto capital in East Jerusalem, without provoking an international backlash and strengthening Yasir Arafat's hold there. They warned that, by isolating and humiliating Arafat, Israel would only bolster his stature at home and abroad. They warned that, by reoccupying Palestinian cities and targeting terrorist leaders, Israel would only deepen Palestinian rage and despair.
In fact, Israel shut down Orient House in August 2001 with relative impunity, and today, few even recall where it was. Not only has Arafat been confined to the ruins of his Ramallah headquarters for the last two years, but he has become a near-pariah figure even among many European foreign ministers and the target of a revolt in the territories against his corrupt rule. In late August, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer visited Jerusalem, but not Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah...

For those who act as apologists for terrorism, asking "What did we do to make them hate us?":

Though Israelis would continue to disagree about how to solve the Palestinian problem, they now agreed with Sharon that Israel must not try to solve that problem until terrorism was defeated. Even Shimon Peres appeared on CNN to defend the counteroffensive. Here was another lesson Israelis had finally internalized: Addressing terrorists' grievances before terrorism is defeated only encourages terrorism and makes those grievances harder to resolve.

The final point:

Americans would be wise to study this final lesson, too: Perhaps the greatest danger in fighting terrorism is the polarizing effect such a campaign can have — not just internationally, but domestically. To avoid this pitfall, a strong political consensus for military action is necessary. That means the president must actively reach out to domestic opposition. But American leaders must also heed Sharon's other lessons. That means an ability to endure criticism from abroad and even to risk international isolation, a willingness to define the war on terrorism as a total war, and a commitment to focus one's political agenda on winning, not on divisive or extraneous concerns. Fulfilling those conditions does not guarantee success. But it does make success possible — as Israel is, at great cost, showing the world.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

Why We Can't Just Pull Out of Iraq

This post, written by an Iraqi blogger, is in direct response to Michael Novak's recent column. In it, he details some of the reasons that going to war was the right thing to do. I recommend reading it, because judging from the coverage the war gets around here, you'd think that everyone outside our borders now hate us, and everyone in the ME are actively trying to kill us.

Flopping Further and Further...

Watch as Kerry flip-flops even more!

Kerry (vs Dean in a Primary debate):

Anybody who believes that the world is not safer with Saddam out of power doesn't "have the judgment to be president.''

Kerry vs himself:

"We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.''

He's his own worst critic...

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Funny Commercials

Here is a pair of witty anti-Kerry commercials. The first lampoons his flip-flopping tendencies, while the second takes him to task on his statement that he'd only raise taxes on the rich. Watch them both, if only for a bit of amusement.

Too Little, Too Late

The bloated bureaucracy of the UN is finally doing something about the Sudan situation. Unfortunately, they're settling for sanctions if the genocide doesn't stop. Now don't get me wrong, sanctions can and have worked to influence countries. The problem is, they take time... lots of time. This is time that the people being driven from their homes and killed just don't have. A diplomatic success for the US in keeping it from being vetoed, considering that France has compelling oil interests in the country. But it's still not enough.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Why Blogs Work

This facinating article uses Hayek's economic theory in an attempt to figure out why blogs can do what they do, which is particularly important since they dropped CBS like a ton of bricks less than a week ago.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Missed Sarcasm

Apparently I was not blatant enough with my sarcasm in pointing out the last post. I did not expect that to be taken at face value, and I apologize to anyone who thought I had intended it in that manner. It was intended merely as food for thought, and I was delinquent in my job as a (very) amatuer blogger by not pointing that out. While there is a kernel of truth in any propaganda, I do not honestly believe that any United States Senator is capable of treachery. Kerry may be a lying scumbag or a war criminal, but I do not believe he is a traitor.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Kerry is a war hero... FOR THE OTHER SIDE???

Well, I guess Kerry must be a real war hero after all... The only problem is that he has his picture prominently displayed in a Communist war museum.

The photograph, displayed in a room dedicated to foreign activists who contributed to the Communist victory in the Vietnam War, shows Senator John Kerry being greeted by Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam...

The existence of photographs showing Senator Kerry meeting with General Secretary Do Muoi is not in question. In the course of pursuing the POW and MIA issue, it is reasonable that Senator Kerry would seek to meet with the leaders of Communist Vietnam. The critical issue here is that the Vietnamese Communists have chosen to honor Senator Kerry in their War Remnants Museum for his assistance in helping them achieve victory over the United States. The sign outside the entrance to the room reads: “The World Supports Vietnam in its Resistance.” Also exhibited inside the room are protest banners and emblems from various nations and photographs of international leaders who supported North Vietnam’s cause, including communist hero Mao Tse-Tung.

UPDATE: See here. I was trying (and apparently failing) to be sarcastic.

21st Century: Rise of the Market State?

Tech Central Station (one of my favorite places to find intriguing ideas on economic and foreign policy) recently published an article discussing an interesting point. Mr. Scoblete discusses the theory of the Market State, a state far different from the currently dominant Nation State (aka welfare state). The Nation State was built on it's ability to ensure the material well being of its citizens, while the Market State will be built on its ability to provide opportunity for citizens to advance their own well being. Very interesting, particularly for small government conservatives, as he says that government likely won't shrink, merely change focus. Hmmm...

Monday, September 13, 2004

I just couldn't resist posting this... It's too funny.

Putin Power Grab?

Here is an interesting and more than a bit disturbing post about an apparent consolidation and government restructuring in Russia in response to the Beslan massacre.

Rathergate continues

There is a new site out there that I found (via Instapundit), covering the forgery issue, being dubbed Rathergate, far better than I ever could. If you would like to keep track of it, please follow it here. Just as a quick reminder of who had a little something to gain from the release of these memos, I leave you with this quote, which Instapundit pulled from somewhere in his vast archives (I can't get his link to work):

"We're having a hard time tracking how we got the documents," says the CBS News producer. "There are at least two people in this building who have insisted we got copies of these memos from the Kerry campaign by way of an additional source. We do not have the originals, and our sources have indicated to us that we will not be getting the originals. How that is possible I don't know."

Here's how that's possible: YOU'VE BEEN HAD. Admit it, investigate, and move on. Without all of the above, the credibility of CBS tanks, along with the plummeting AP.

Saturday, September 11, 2004

Forged Documents

If you have any doubts that the CBS documents are forgeries, here is a simple little flash animation that illustrates the main points in about 30 seconds. This should affirm the fact that it is a blatant forgery.

The proud warriors of Baker Company wanted to do something to pay tribute to our fallen comrades. So since we are part of the only Marine Infantry Battalion left in Iraq the one way that we could think of doing that is by taking a picture of Baker Company saying the way we feel. It would be awesome if you could find a way to share this with our fellow countrymen.

I was wondering if there was any way to get this into your papers to let the world know that "WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN" and are proud to serve our country." Semper Fi
1stSgt Dave Jobe


Whether you are for, against, or don't care about the war on terror, pleas spend some time today remembering and praying for those who lost their lives on the tragic day three years ago...

The picture above is brought to you via American Daughter.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Air Guard Documents Forged?

The Powerline blog has a fascinating story on the possible (probable?) forgery of documents used in the recent 60 minutes report questioning President Bush's Air National Guard duty. If true, this could devastate their credibility.

The permalink for the story isn't working; I'll try to fix it later. For now, simply scroll down to the post entitled "The Sixty-First Minute." If that doesn't work, there's a similar story here.

UPDATE: Powerline's permalink appears to be working now, so here it is.

UPDATE 2: The more I read, the more it appears that these are forgeries. The typesetting, letter formatting, and style all appear to be far more recent than 1972. Powerline is still leading the charge with this one, so go to them for the full story (see above).

UPDATE 3: Apparently CBS is unwilling to do anything about this. They say there will be no investigation. Even with the plethora of evidence trotted out against CBS, they appear to be prepared to walk the plank for the sole purpose of damaging Bush's chances for reelection. Reason #5782 not to trust the mainstream media...

Monday, September 06, 2004

AP Lies: Take 2

I really don't have time to write a full post, but I'll link you to one. The AP screwed up again, and in the process attemted to make Arnold the Governator look like a liar. I'll leave it at that; click the link for more.

Sunday, September 05, 2004

So you say we don't "fight fair?"

Liberals continue to whine about the right not "fighting fair" when it comes to this election. Such accusations of cheap shots can be effective... but only if the accusers hold the moral high ground themselves. So for every liberal that says we conservatives take cheap shots, I ask them to first examine their own track record in this campaign: (borrowed from

  • A Democrat Congressman says the Bush administration is taking America "into a snake pit of fascism."
  • Getting former astronaut and Democrat Senator John Glenn to trot out the Hitler comparison.
  • Three liberal protestors tried to disrupt Bush's convention speech (funny, I didn't see any conservatives trying to disrupt Kerry's speech to the DNC convention).
  • Liberal protestors who tie up city streets and inconvenience people just so they can satisfy their narcissistic jones.
  • A featured speaker at a NOW rally says Bush "savagely raped " women "over and over."
  • Zillionaires like George Soros trying to buy the election for Kerry through the 527 loophole, of which Democrats have made far greater use than the GOP.
  • Unions using members' dues to fund political activities that almost uniformly support Democrats.
  • When a state police union bucks the tide by considering supporting Bush, Democrat legislators threaten retaliation.
  • Democrat operatives working overtime to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot, thus besmirching the very name of their party.
  • The Democrat's media allies planning a 60 Minutes smear of Bush's National Guard service.
  • Kitty Kelley's book smearing Bush that will be released as a last-minute October surprise.
  • Michael Moore's fantasies turned into a feature-length campaign ad.
  • Bruce Springsteen getting around campaign finance laws by organizing an anti-Bush concert.
  • Free advertising for the left at nearly every Hollywood awards show where one or more acceptance speechs attack Bush.
  • The incredible media bias towards Democrats, which Newsweek editor Evan Thomas says is worth "maybe 15 points" for Kerry.

Now... the conservative movement may not be perfect, and has indeed done mudslinging, but until the left is willing to clean up their act, they get no right to complain.

Saturday, September 04, 2004

Kerry vs. Kerry

Come one, come all! See the world's first Kerry vs. Kerry debate! Read as the man argues with himself!

Friday, September 03, 2004

AP lies, slanders Bush

This has been running around the blogs all day, and I feel obligated to share it with you:

The AP ran this story:

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them. Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath. Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president." (emphasis mine)

Note the sentences in bold. There was no booing. In fact, if you listen to the audio, there is actually cheering! This isn't just spinning the news, this is making it up! Well, after this small fact began to spread, the story was edited, removing the offending sentences. The AP has yet to issue an apology, and I doubt one will be forthcoming. Another story to add to the case against the liberal media...

(For a better written and more complete telling of this story, visit PowerLine)


Order of events: (from Galley Slaves)
The Associated Press
(1) Puts out a story with falsified reporting;
(2) Pulls the story;
(3) Removes the faulty reporting;
(4) Makes no note of its mistake; and then
(5) Pulls the byline of the reporter who made the error.

Hmmm... one might think that they pulled Tom Hays's byline to protect him. Apparently they can't allow him to take the heat for his own misdeeds, i.e. MAKING CRAP UP!!! Too bad the original version will survive forever in the LexisNexis database. =)

UPDATE 2: Apparently Tom Hays was not actually at the rally, but recieved his information from Scott Lindlaw (another AP reporter). Whichever is actually responsible for this slanderous accusation of booing should be fired.

What this election is Really about

I found this interesting article about what this presidential election is, or really should be, about: whether the Bush Doctrine is the way to meet the challenges the future holds. In my opinion, it is. Even if that opinion is not yours (I suspect both of my roommates would disagree with me on this score), you must recognize that this election will either make or break the doctrine of the preemption of terrorists; which course we take is up to you, the voter.

Say what?

So, you tell me what to make of this Reuters headline:

Bush Blames Terrorists for Russian Deaths

Did they have someone else they thought more worthy of blame? These people were shot in the back (i.e. while attempting to escape from the school). Who should Bush blame?

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Quick note

If you have Apple's Itunes, go to the music store, search "RNC," and download speeches by Giuliani, Laura Bush, and the Governator for FREE. If you don't have Itunes yet, go here and download it.